No it doesn't, all it requires is faith, which by definition is irrational belief, which is often (often =/= always, just so you know) accompanied by ignorance (lack of knowledge) that is never questioned (lack of critical thinking).

I have argued with both types, i would know.I have also argued with extremists.So i have experience.And you can learn a lot about both sides of the story.Arguements are meant to increase our visual of the world.To understand the world in other people's viewpoints. Arguements are not meant to kill people-like that guy who got shot/killed over an arguement about rap lyrics in my school.Thats not the purpose of critisism/arguements.

I've "argued" with, or at least observed the arguments, both types as well. But most people can only throw the same crap back and forth at each other without actually listening to each other. Discussions are meant to help people understand different view points, but most of us are so set in our ways that we refuse or are unable to accept views that are different than our own, hence our limited thinking capacity (I'm not so sure that that's a great term to describe what I mean, but I can't think of anything better).

I have a question for anyone that like to answer it. If Thor god of Thunder, and Odin his father, and Rey all came down and claimed that they are the true Gods! And the Christian God is not real.
What would it take for you to believe them?
Say they wipe out all the militarize powers on earth, would you then convert to Norse Paganism?

Types of Evidence
- Eyewitness testimony
- Is the eyewitness reliable? Biased?
- Supporting testimony
- Can you find a neutral party to confirm some part of the testimony ?
- Material evidence
- Any evidence that confirms what really happened?
- Self observation

This is really what is needed for any Atheist to be converted. In my opinion! See atheist are willing to believe if you can show real proof that it is true.
(this is just a friendly question.)

Judging how people have been posting! I don't think you get the idea behind the thread. I was asking what would it take for you to believe in the Norse.

What would it take?
What did it take to believe in your religion?

Odin and all the other Norse deities were destroyed and nailed to Yggdrasil on Götterdämmerung. So, if Odin came and told me that the Norse religion was true I’d be like, “Dude, wtf?”

What would it take for me to believe in the Norse religion? Well, quite a bit and I’ll explain why.

The stories and legends of Norse mythology are all written in a very “mythological,” style. They tell stories of scattered magical events (much like the Apocryphal texts,) and are often designed to make a good campfire story. Documents of Norse mythology are not only contradicting they’re also written by authors who seem to already have all the answers.

Read “Beowulf,” or “Egil’s Saga,” and you’ll see what I mean. They’re told like choreographed stories.

The bible, specifically the New Testament, is written in a very unique style. It’s a collection of eye-witness accounts being retold. At many points the authors themselves seem completely lost, ambivalent, and unaware of what’s going on. You can see that they’re limited in their ability to communicate the events that happened.

Peter Kreeft had the best example. There’s a story in the bible where a group of people drag a whore out into the streets to stone her. Jesus shows up and people crowd around to see what he has to say. Jesus says, “He who is without sin cast the first stone,” and begins to write in the sand. We’ve all heard this story.

What’s interesting about it is that the authors -don’t- know what he wrote. Supposedly there were large crowds. It wouldn’t have been likely that the author would’ve been able to see what was written in the sand-you know? Should it have been written by Homer or Muhammad or one of the Norse authors they would’ve explained what was written. Although the bible talks about this event many times nobody tries to claim they know what happened.

Essentially the New Testament is a historical document. It doesn’t necessarily show that Jesus was divine but it is solid evidence that people honestly believed he was divine. The N.T is a collection of eye-witness accounts.

I have a question for anyone that like to answer it. If Thor god of Thunder, and Odin his father, and Rey all came down and claimed that they are the true Gods! And the Christian God is not real.
What would it take for you to believe them?
Say they wipe out all the militarize powers on earth, would you then convert to Norse Paganism?

Types of Evidence
- Eyewitness testimony
- Is the eyewitness reliable? Biased?
- Supporting testimony
- Can you find a neutral party to confirm some part of the testimony ?
- Material evidence
- Any evidence that confirms what really happened?
- Self observation

This is really what is needed for any Atheist to be converted. In my opinion! See atheist are willing to believe if you can show real proof that it is true.
(this is just a friendly question.)

Judging how people have been posting! I don't think you get the idea behind the thread. I was asking what would it take for you to believe in the Norse.

What would it take?
What did it take to believe in your religion?

well okay i know im dumb but you could never get me to change my religon even though i know my religon has faults and is probably a load of bull i believe it and always will because it was what i was taught to believe its as simple as that yup so i know im dumb

I have a question for anyone that like to answer it. If Thor god of Thunder, and Odin his father, and Rey all came down and claimed that they are the true Gods! And the Christian God is not real.
What would it take for you to believe them?
Say they wipe out all the militarize powers on earth, would you then convert to Norse Paganism?

Types of Evidence
- Eyewitness testimony
- Is the eyewitness reliable? Biased?
- Supporting testimony
- Can you find a neutral party to confirm some part of the testimony ?
- Material evidence
- Any evidence that confirms what really happened?
- Self observation

This is really what is needed for any Atheist to be converted. In my opinion! See atheist are willing to believe if you can show real proof that it is true.
(this is just a friendly question.)

Judging how people have been posting! I don't think you get the idea behind the thread. I was asking what would it take for you to believe in the Norse.

What would it take?
What did it take to believe in your religion?

Odin and all the other Norse deities were destroyed and nailed to Yggdrasil on Götterdämmerung. So, if Odin came and told me that the Norse religion was true I’d be like, “Dude, wtf?”

What would it take for me to believe in the Norse religion? Well, quite a bit and I’ll explain why.

The stories and legends of Norse mythology are all written in a very “mythological,” style. They tell stories of scattered magical events (much like the Apocryphal texts,) and are often designed to make a good campfire story. Documents of Norse mythology are not only contradicting they’re also written by authors who seem to already have all the answers.

Read “Beowulf,” or “Egil’s Saga,” and you’ll see what I mean. They’re told like choreographed stories.

The bible, specifically the New Testament, is written in a very unique style. It’s a collection of eye-witness accounts being retold. At many points the authors themselves seem completely lost, ambivalent, and unaware of what’s going on. You can see that they’re limited in their ability to communicate the events that happened.

Peter Kreeft had the best example. There’s a story in the bible where a group of people drag a whore out into the streets to stone her. Jesus shows up and people crowd around to see what he has to say. Jesus says, “He who is without sin cast the first stone,” and begins to write in the sand. We’ve all heard this story.

What’s interesting about it is that the authors -don’t- know what he wrote. Supposedly there were large crowds. It wouldn’t have been likely that the author would’ve been able to see what was written in the sand-you know? Should it have been written by Homer or Muhammad or one of the Norse authors they would’ve explained what was written. Although the bible talks about this event many times nobody tries to claim they know what happened.

Essentially the New Testament is a historical document. It doesn’t necessarily show that Jesus was divine but it is solid evidence that people honestly believed he was divine. The N.T is a collection of eye-witness accounts.

Do you know there is no historical evidence at all for Jesus.
Also the earliest books talking about Jesus, was made more than 50 years after he so could died.
So who was the Eye witnesses testament from? Basically there is no real evidence out side of the bible for anything that happen to Jesus. Also the religion is nothing more than a copy of a few other religion, at that have you ever herd this one. Christianity is 98% Pagan. Thats because most of the bibles stories, the stories about Jesus, and all the Halladays Are Pagan. Christanity only changed some names around. Don't believe me! Look it up.

Do you know there is no historical evidence at all for Jesus.
Also the earliest books talking about Jesus, was made more than 50 years after he so could died.
So who was the Eye witnesses testament from? Basically there is no real evidence out side of the bible for anything that happen to Jesus. Also the religion is nothing more than a copy of a few other religion, at that have you ever herd this one. Christianity is 98% Pagan. Thats because most of the bibles stories, the stories about Jesus, and all the Halladays Are Pagan. Christanity only changed some names around. Don't believe me! Look it up.

No offence, and I’m not trying to challenge you, but I’m afraid you do not have your facts straight. I’m a political science major with a focus in history. I’m also a minor in theology and can tell you that there is plenty of logical and textual evidence of Jesus Christ’s existence. This being said, I also happen to be a mystic-so I don’t find it important where religion is concerned.

However, for the sake of this thread, truth, and my own pride I’d like to set the record straight. I’ve cited my credentials-place whatever value you will in them-and now dive into what I have to say:

Historical ‘facts’ simply amount to information gathered from the testaments of people living in past times. We gather public documents, journals, official papers, and artifacts to investigate events that happened before we lived. There’s no such thing as fact in this, simply what is and is not likely.

This being said most of the information we have on ancient Greece, for example, comes from a couple specific sources. Virtually everything we know about the Persian Wars-the Battle of Marathon, The Battle of Thermopylae and all that jazz-is gathered from Herodotus’ Histories.

The story told us about the Spartans and their allies facing off with the superior forces of a common enemy in the secluded position of Thermopylae. (In case you’ve ever wondered, Thermo is Greek for Hot and pylae is Greek for gate. That’s why they called the pass “Hot Gates,” in “300.”)

We’ve now accepted this as a historical fact and no longer subject it to question. However, Herodotus also tells about a species of giant ants that construct mines and produce gold in grand quantity. One of my favorite stories Herodotus’ tells is about a king. This man is kidnapped by pirates who throw him into the middle of the ocean. The king is rescued by a school of majestic Dolphins that then carry him back to land-miraculously arriving at his home.

So you see, some elements of Herodotus’ Histories feel blatantly mythological. Even still, the Histories remain the major source for events in ancient Greece to this day. The bible is very similar. Even though we don’t typically except all the miracle stories we still rely on it to provide us information about political and social movements.

One example is that historians accept the idea that a group of dessert nomads were enslaved by the Egyptians. They even except that a man named Moses started a movement to free his people. Yet, they do not necessarily except that this encountered God and sent a horde of angels on the every first born child in Egypt.

Another example is that they accept that Jesus Christ lived and walked the world, but not that he was the son of God. Now, mind you, there is a -tiny- minority of historians who suggest that Jesus Christ never existed. However, they’re not respected in the scholarly fields and their arguments have all been judged inconclusive and published as theories-not facts. Jesus’ existence, on the other hand, is published as fact.

There’s nothing outside of the bible to suggest that he lived? Quite the contrary, there are artifacts and documents even outside the Christians and Jews attest Jesus Christ lived and walked the earth. They disagree on a lot of things, but not that Jesus lived and had a large following of people.

There are the Apocryphal Texts which talk about Jesus like some kind of magician. There are the Gnostic texts which describe Jesus as a brilliant man. There are the writings of the Pharisees that talk about Christ as a blasphemous zealot. There are Roman documents talking about Christ as a criminal.

Christianity is a copy-cat religion? It’s a distinct possibility that many historians seriously considered. However, research into this area is all inconclusive. There’s certainly correlation but not necessarily causation. That is to say, the bible (Tanakh and otherwise,) tell stories similar to others but not necessarily derived from them.

Noah’s Ark tells a story very similar to that of the Epic of Gilgamesh. The book of genesis was also written long after the Epic of Gilgamesh. This suggests that the story may be an adaptation of previous and popular stories from other religions but we don’t really know. The Torah wasn’t written down upon its original composition-hints the phrase “Oral Torah,” because the impoverished and enslaved Jews recited their religion orally for generations before the canonization.

No it doesn't, all it requires is faith, which by definition is irrational belief, which is often (often =/= always, just so you know) accompanied by ignorance (lack of knowledge) that is never questioned (lack of critical thinking).

I have argued with both types, i would know.I have also argued with extremists.So i have experience.And you can learn a lot about both sides of the story.Arguements are meant to increase our visual of the world.To understand the world in other people's viewpoints. Arguements are not meant to kill people-like that guy who got shot/killed over an arguement about rap lyrics in my school.Thats not the purpose of critisism/arguements.

I've "argued" with, or at least observed the arguments, both types as well. But most people can only throw the same crap back and forth at each other without actually listening to each other. Discussions are meant to help people understand different view points, but most of us are so set in our ways that we refuse or are unable to accept views that are different than our own, hence our limited thinking capacity (I'm not so sure that that's a great term to describe what I mean, but I can't think of anything better).

Faith - (dictionary.com)
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad

faith has nothing to do with irrationalism...i provided my evidence and proof.

"No it doesn't, all it requires is faith, which by definition is irrational belief, which is often (often =/= always, just so you know) accompanied by ignorance (lack of knowledge) that is never questioned (lack of critical thinking)."

Religion doesnt have to be accompanied by ignorance.You can always look and understand other views of the world. You dont have to limit your knowlege. Religion is questioned all of the time by athiest and the congregation of the church.I have discussed religious views plenty of times with athiests, my religion was quesioned and i provided answers.It takes critical thinking to interpret the Bible...I am well aware of the history of the Bible and of other philosophy's of athiets, agnostic, and thiest.So there is no "lack of knowledge".and what i dont know i learn from the arguments.And im pretty sure some priest have to answer quesions about thier religion to some of the congregation that may have trouble believing thier religion.

Faith - (dictionary.com)
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad

faith has nothing to do with irrationalism...i provided my evidence and proof.

If you read the second definition, it says "belief that is not based on proof." When you believe in something with no valid evidence (evidence that can be confirmed to be true by anyone and everyone), your belief is unreasonable, which is the definition of irrational ("not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical," from dictionary.com).

"No it doesn't, all it requires is faith, which by definition is irrational belief, which is often (often =/= always, just so you know) accompanied by ignorance (lack of knowledge) that is never questioned (lack of critical thinking)."

Religion doesnt have to be accompanied by ignorance.You can always look and understand other views of the world. You dont have to limit your knowlege. Religion is questioned all of the time by athiest and the congregation of the church.I have discussed religious views plenty of times with athiests, my religion was quesioned and i provided answers.It takes critical thinking to interpret the Bible...I am well aware of the history of the Bible and of other philosophy's of athiets, agnostic, and thiest.So there is no "lack of knowledge".and what i dont know i learn from the arguments.And im pretty sure some priest have to answer quesions about thier religion to some of the congregation that may have trouble believing thier religion.

Again, I never said always, but often. Often means "many times; frequently; in many cases [from dictionary.com]," which means not always, which means religion doesn't have to be accompanied by ignorance. I don't see how you can even discuss anything with anyone when apparently you don't even read everything they say, causing you present arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion.

When I said it is often (meaining "many times; frequently; in many cases," from dictionary.com) not questioned, I meant that many people do not question their beliefs, they just accept whatever religion their parents raised them in. Of course there are people who do question their faith and come to the conclusion that it is true, but most (meaning "in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number; in the majority of instances" from dictionary.com) people don't. If you didn't catch it, I already made it clear that I know that there a people who do question their faith, so you don't have to explain it to me.

I know that not all religious people are retards, but when I said it requires no knowledge, I meant that faith doesn't require knowledge to exist. Long ago when humans were a young species, we did not know what caused rain or what caused wind, but we were still able to come to the conclusion that some sort of deity was causing them. I can believe that bigfoot lives on Pluto without knowing exactly what the living conditions on Pluto are like and without knowing what kind of living conditions bigfoot can survive, but my belief is just as valid as someone who has spent their entire life studying and understanding the Bible, simply because I can choose to continue to believe it no matter how irrational it is. I know that there are a lot of people who have studied religion very diligently, which is why I said most (meaning "in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number;in the majority of instances" from dictionary.com) people's faith is based on ignorance

I hope you appreciate all the effort I put forth to make everything clearer for you.

Faith - (dictionary.com)
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad

faith has nothing to do with irrationalism...i provided my evidence and proof.

If you read the second definition, it says "belief that is not based on proof." When you believe in something with no valid evidence (evidence that can be confirmed to be true by anyone and everyone), your belief is unreasonable, which is the definition of irrational ("not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical," from dictionary.com).

"No it doesn't, all it requires is faith, which by definition is irrational belief, which is often (often =/= always, just so you know) accompanied by ignorance (lack of knowledge) that is never questioned (lack of critical thinking)."

Religion doesnt have to be accompanied by ignorance.You can always look and understand other views of the world. You dont have to limit your knowlege. Religion is questioned all of the time by athiest and the congregation of the church.I have discussed religious views plenty of times with athiests, my religion was quesioned and i provided answers.It takes critical thinking to interpret the Bible...I am well aware of the history of the Bible and of other philosophy's of athiets, agnostic, and thiest.So there is no "lack of knowledge".and what i dont know i learn from the arguments.And im pretty sure some priest have to answer quesions about thier religion to some of the congregation that may have trouble believing thier religion.

Again, I never said always, but often. Often means "many times; frequently; in many cases [from dictionary.com]," which means not always, which means religion doesn't have to be accompanied by ignorance. I don't see how you can even discuss anything with anyone when apparently you don't even read everything they say, causing you present arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion.

When I said it is often (meaining "many times; frequently; in many cases," from dictionary.com) not questioned, I meant that many people do not question their beliefs, they just accept whatever religion their parents raised them in. Of course there are people who do question their faith and come to the conclusion that it is true, but most (meaning "in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number; in the majority of instances" from dictionary.com) people don't. If you didn't catch it, I already made it clear that I know that there a people who do question their faith, so you don't have to explain it to me.

I know that not all religious people are retards, but when I said it requires no knowledge, I meant that faith doesn't require knowledge to exist. Long ago when humans were a young species, we did not know what caused rain or what caused wind, but we were still able to come to the conclusion that some sort of deity was causing them. I can believe that bigfoot lives on Pluto without knowing exactly what the living conditions on Pluto are like and without knowing what kind of living conditions bigfoot can survive, but my belief is just as valid as someone who has spent their entire life studying and understanding the Bible, simply because I can choose to continue to believe it no matter how irrational it is. I know that there are a lot of people who have studied religion very diligently, which is why I said most (meaning "in the greatest quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number;in the majority of instances" from dictionary.com) people's faith is based on ignorance

I hope you appreciate all the effort I put forth to make everything clearer for you.

ok, fine..i can aggree with that....

"If you read the second definition, it says "belief that is not based on proof." When you believe in something with no valid evidence (evidence that can be confirmed to be true by anyone and everyone), your belief is unreasonable, which is the definition of irrational ("not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical," from dictionary.com)."

that is a watered down definition of a definition...thats just interpretting the initial definition of faith.The same technique is used when interpetating the Bible I guess that all depends on your perspective of faith.I cant really argue with you there
but my interpretaton of faith is not irrational peace over war